I've been reading his blog and books for years. I thought you studied law. 1- 'If xyz', is not a proven fact. 2- Not found so far doesn't mean never existed as majority of all historic evidence is lost anyway not the reverse. 3- You refuse to face the music and post the exact claim (I MEAN EXACTLY WHAT YOU TYPED HERE) on his blog for his reply. 4- You said you didn't subscribe but actually said much worse as I quoted. This any judge and jury would call an outright blatant obvious daylight lie.

P.S. And you still don't know what lineage he or you are talking about, and we won't tell either, which is hilarious.

username wrote:This is an old article I read long before and magnus, whom I agree with here in his interpretation of Sam, posted it here before too if I remember correctly. Sam is not the type of person who would draw such radical conclusions based on almost nothing. He is very respectful and also conservative. While he hypothesizes sometimes, he never states things as fact without evidence and is always flexible. He states all the facts he deems relevant often contradictory. That's just not his style. People can post on his blog and he answers honestly, so I don't buy any of that interpretation. Also he has read widely, including Samten Karmay and others, who state the texts how Dzogchen was actually banned by local rulers in North India and never was properly established openly before it went North and lots lots more. This is a big field not just summed up in a few pages of an article. Attacking Ekajati's protected lineage merely after mis-reading a short article when someone just finished their PhD is going over the top for probably other personal reasons.

The seventeen tantras cannot be firmly dated earlier than their initial production by Dangma Lhungyal. Between him and Nyanban Tingzin Zangpo there is only a single master, Bey Lodro Wangchug (one Rinchen Bar is also sometimes added to the list). We can positively date the end of Chetsun Senge Wangchug's life to the early 12th century.

Supposedly, Lodro Wangchug concealed the Seventeen Tantras in Samye, and Dangma Lhungyal removed them from hiding at Samye and gave them to Chetsun.

The Vima Nyinthig is the earliest text to list the seventeen tantras and their subject matter. For the most part, the Vima Nyinthig is the terma of Chetsun. Thus, teachings like the Tshig gsum gnad rdeg, etc., also cannot be dated earlier than the late11th --early 12th century.

These are the kinds of facts that limit textual analysis. You can only go by when a text actually appears.

There are three masters between Vimala and Chestun, and since tradition holds that Nyingthig tradition was a single lineage until Chetsun, we would have to accept that these three or four masters passed on several thousand handwritten folios i.e. the several hundred pages of the seventeen tantras as well as their lenghty commentaries, between roughly 800 AD and the early 12th century when Chetsun passed on his lineage to Zhangton Tashi Dorje who lived between 1097 and 1167 around 1123 when they met. Thus, the latest date for the seventeen tantras is 1123. Obviously they were composed earlier, since the Vima Nyinthig is based on them.

Zhangton's son, Nima Bum, wrote the earliest independent commentary on the Vima Nyinthig. It is a very interesting text, and is dense with citations from the seventeen tantras, and is the model upon which Longchenpa based his own Tshig Don Mdzod. Nyibum was also a disciple of Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen and was closely connected with the Sakya school. The Nyinthig teachings were a family lineage for three generations i.e. Tashi Dorje, Nyibum and his nephew, Guru Jober.

The commentaries for the seventeen tantras are first mentioned by Longchenpa and so cannot date later than he. It seems unlikely they were actually authored by Vimalamitra, but who knows. They were mostly likely composed in the early 13th century since they must have been known to Kumararaja. Perhaps they were composed by Nyibum, since he was known to be a great scholar, his title was "Zhang mkhas pa" i.e. "Zhang Pandita". Or there were three masters between Nyibum and Kumararaja, Jober, Sangye Gyab and Melong Dorje, all thirteen century masters. Anyone of them too could have composed these commentaries.

Jober, was known to have many disciples. He passed away in 1258.

The Khandro Nyinthig was produced in the mid-to late thirteenth century after Jober started teachings Vima Nyinthig widely. We do not have good dates for Pema Ledretsal, the terton for the Khandro Nyinthig. All we know is that he was active in the mid to later thirteenth century and that he did not life a long life.

The Khandro Nyinthig presents itself as a commentary of one tantra specifically, i.e., the Longsal Tantra. Thus this tantra predates the Khandro Nything but is later than the Seventeen Tantras, it was probably composed in the early 13th century. The Khandro Nyinthig is the earliest text that mentions the Longsal Tantra. This tantra summarizes all the topics of the Vima Nyinthig and the seventeen tantras into 113 chapters, giving detailed instruction for practicing creation stage, completion stage as well as Dzogchen tregchö and thögal. Most later Nyingthig termas atrributed to Padmasambhava cite the Longsal tantra extensively. The Khandro Nyinthig also begins the tradition of six short tagdrol tantras. Notably, it has a concise version of the Single Son of the All the Buddhas, originally found in Ser Yig Can of the Vima Nyinthig.

We can trace the ideas and their spread pretty well after Chetsun. We cannot trace the origin of these texts at all well, and so have to rely on the history of the seventeen tantras and the Vima Nyinthig as presented in the Lo rgyus chen mo since this is our earliest source of information about this tradition. We have to admit that objectively, we really do not know anything about this tradition prior to Senge Wangchuk.

N

Last edited by Malcolm on Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Hi Namdrol, You have written some of these facts before for years as have Sam and Karmay and others. Also we know how texts are re-revealed sometimes often word for word. So we know what is important. Majority of all historic evidence is lost, not the reverse, this is the norm. However adinatha's main point presented here you avoid is that Nubchen invented the whole Dzogchen lineage and vehicle status out of selfish ambition, as a fact.

username wrote:Hi Namdrol, You have written some of these facts before for years as have Sam and Karmay and others. Also we know how texts are re-revealed sometimes often word for word. So we know what is important. However adinatha's main point you avoid is that Nubchen invented the whole Dzogchen lineage and vehicle status out of selfish ambition, as a fact.

Even that were SVS's POV, I would not be inclined to accept it.

As a practitioner, I accept the what the tradition says about itself understanding that there are spritiual reasons for the various accounts of the lineage.

As a scholar, I accept only what can be ascertained as a certainty according to the common perception of human beings. So for example, if I find a number of obscure tantras embeded in a terma cycle that are also found in the NGB, as I have, I have to assume the terton is borrowing them into his collection.

I don't have a problem with awakened humans borrowing old texts and repurposing them or reviving them.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

username wrote:Hi Namdrol, You have written some of these facts before for years as have Sam and Karmay and others. Also we know how texts are re-revealed sometimes often word for word. So we know what is important. Majority of all historic evidence is lost, not the reverse, this is the norm. However adinatha's main point presented here you avoid is that Nubchen invented the whole Dzogchen lineage and vehicle status out of selfish ambition, as a fact.

I'm saying it's a fact Sam says it in his book. He is talking about the Nyingthig lineage, probably Vima. And next time I see on here someone saying Mahamudra is a slow path and all that, I'm going to remind that person of this. Because I'm tired of that being the party line around here. All you Dzogchenpas act all high and mighty and the humble Kagyupas kowtow. But as Mr. Gordo remarked, I have a big ego.

That is wrong too. Don't know where this false inferiority complex comes from, must have been a jealous assura previously, but to most of us essence mahamudra is Dzogchen semde. Get a grip of yurself man.

Last edited by username on Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

username wrote:Hi Namdrol, You have written some of these facts before for years as have Sam and Karmay and others. Also we know how texts are re-revealed sometimes often word for word. So we know what is important. However adinatha's main point you avoid is that Nubchen invented the whole Dzogchen lineage and vehicle status out of selfish ambition, as a fact.

Even that were SVS's POV, I would not be inclined to accept it.

As a practitioner, I accept the what the tradition says about itself understanding that there are spritiual reasons for the various accounts of the lineage.

As a scholar, I accept only what can be ascertained as a certainty according to the common perception of human beings. So for example, if I find a number of obscure tantras embeded in a terma cycle that are also found in the NGB, as I have, I have to assume the terton is borrowing them into his collection.

I don't have a problem with awakened humans borrowing old texts and repurposing them or reviving them.

Sam is really reasnoable and he changes his mind quickly on a hypothesis, like the little iffy one quoted, if someone says something sensible. Anyway we all can sort of smell dodgy texts. I always hoped, but never said to you, that you would translate some of the 17.

username wrote:
Sam is really reasnoable and he changes his mind quickly on a hypothesis, like the little iffy one quoted, if someone says something sensible. Anyway we all can sort of smell dodgy texts. I always hoped, but never said to you, that you would translate some of the 17.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

username wrote:
Sam is really reasnoable and he changes his mind quickly on a hypothesis, like the little iffy one quoted, if someone says something sensible. Anyway we all can sort of smell dodgy texts. I always hoped, but never said to you, that you would translate some of the 17.

we'll see, I ain't dead yet.

Yet we don't know how long we got left, but seriously that is good news. You've been dilly dallying too long while some of the others churn out sub-quality.

Last edited by username on Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

dzinpa wrote:Once upon a time, a bunch of people was unhappy about the size of their nose and decided they really didn’t want to have a nose at all. Two noseless guys came along. One pointed out a shop on the other side of a chaotic highway saying, ‘Over there you can get your nose removed for free.’ The other noseless guy looked around and said, ‘Over there you can use that pedestrian crossing.’ A lot of the people promptly got really pissed off and said, ‘How dare they imply my nose is too big!’ Many other people thought if the shop was free, it had to be dubious. Some people started to ask, ‘How big is too big?’ Others began wondering why they had a nose at all and a few even wrote treatises about it. Others felt that getting your nose removed was the job of surgeons. Most agreed that it required planning, preparation, family support and follow-up therapy. The majority of people discovered they really loved their noses anyway. After all, it was what made them distinguishable from each another. Dzogchen and Mahamudra: genuine paths or words with a nasal inflection?

Watch the 'outer' appearances/experiences; minds' nose get habitual burned by the heat of attraction.
But by *watching the thoughts-emotions* as reaction on appaerances-experiences; the thoughts-emotions in mind are directly melting like snowy flakes on a hot rock.

Peace not only for ' a Buddhist', but for all.

“ Only the development of compassion and understanding for others can bring us the tranquility and happiness we all seek. ”
H H Dalai Lama

adinatha wrote:
He's saying Dzogchen wasn't treated as a vehicle in India, but as a view in applying deity yoga. He's saying Dzogchen didn't become a vehicle until Tibet through Nubchen. He basically questions whether the nine yana scheme really came from Padmasambhava. And he said straight out that it seems like Nub wanted to start his own lineage. That the development of the literature and the timing of release after the 11th century is evidence that Dzogchen as a vehicle is a Tibetan invention. Re-read it I guess.

You are jumping to conclusions adinatha. Sam is a scholar,he report what he can sees and he don't jump to conclusions. Of course what you say is something that one could conclude after reading his studies but he is not saying that.

/magnus

"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)